Pregnant Nude On Plinth Provokes Puking

[MarkG]

Camille Paglia in Sexual Persona says the Greek ideal of beauty was homoerotic. They idealized the beautiful boy.

is this homoerotic?

http://jeffrobin.hightechhigh.org/Projects/Realism/Impressionism/Images/aphrodite,%20eros%20and%20pan%20c.100bc.jpg

[Ben Kenobi]

Well in one article the sculptor indicated its about courage (which makes it fit the square better) I certainly know some physcially challenged people who are excellent models of courage. Of course I think of them in terms of what they do in their work life, political life etc as exemplifying courage, though I can see how being pregnant with certain challenges could be seen as exemplifying courage as well. So im not sure it really is about sexuality.

No, it really isn't, because the two are intertwined. It takes courage to challenge folks, and say, why treat me different from everyone else? Why can't you love me in the same way?

I don't know if this makes any sense to you, but it is something that is really important to me.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


No, it really isn't, because the two are intertwined. It takes courage to challenge folks, and say, why treat me different from everyone else? Why can't you love me in the same way?

I don't know if this makes any sense to you, but it is something that is really important to me.

Im not sure we're connecting. Im near sighted, and may have a touch of ADD, but those are invisible limitations, and so not really relevant. I will instead discuss something trivial, but I hope it makes the point.

I have a receding hairline. I would be tremendously outraged if I was excluded from a job for that reason, even if some resources had to expended (for whatever reason) to accomodate me. Or if I was considered a lesser person.

I do not expect however, that statues of nude men include bald men, or even men with receding hairlines. I can accept that standards of beauty wrt to physical perfection dont necessarily include me. I can be pleased (though im not sure I am) that Lucian Freud paints bald, nude men. But I dont see a need to put those on a plinth in the center of a city, and I dont think that those who might object to it are dehumanizing me.

Human beings should not live lesser lives because theyre not beautiful - just as they shouldnt because theyre physically challenged. Thats a truth I agree on. I dont see that it follows that either A. all standards of physical beauty are false, or dehumanizing or B. standards of physical beauty have no bearing on art, in particular on nude art, in particular on nude public art.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The point Quinn is making is that we've grown to accept a lack of limbs in classical sculpture- take the Venus de Milo as an example. We can look past the missing limbs and appreciate the beauty that remains.

Now, in a sculpture very much in the classical tradition, we're presented with a woman who had no arms to begin with, and are simply asked to apply the same standards. It's a real challenge to preconceptions of disability, and great art.

[duke o' york]

I think it's a great work, and deserves to be there. Its heir, though, the Bird Hotel: I have other views on.

I don't particularly like the artist or the model (basing my views entirely on a documentary ), but will defend their right to have the art in public view, and where it is. Nelson was hardly able-bodied, was he?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by duke o' york
Nelson was hardly able-bodied, was he?

"the FDR memorial in DC has a sculpture of FDR in his chair. Nothing unheroic about it.

But hes not nude (thank goodness)"

[lord of the mark]

whats odd is that I SUPPORTED the statue of FDR in his wheel chair, which some opposed, on the grounds that FDR DID hide his disability. I was convinced that he wouldnt have done so today.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
The point Quinn is making is that we've grown to accept a lack of limbs in classical sculpture- take the Venus de Milo as an example. We can look past the missing limbs and appreciate the beauty that remains.

Forget the limbs. Look at the face of the Venus, and of the Lapper sculpture. Although its hard to tell with little web pics.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Then allow me to assist.

[lord of the mark]

then applying the same standards, Id have to say this aint no Venus de Milo. Sculptors purpose achieved, case closed, whats next for the plinth?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

This.

[Ben Kenobi]

Im not sure we're connecting. Im near sighted, and may have a touch of ADD, but those are invisible limitations, and so not really relevant. I will instead discuss something trivial, but I hope it makes the point.

Ok, some would say mine is invisible, other then the fact that I have to wear hearing aids. However, I must say that one of the biggest compliments people pay is when they say they forget that I can't hear. The loss affects things more in close relationships, then it does other ones. I can empathise somewhat to the difficulties that other folks face in approaching someone else who doesn't face these difficulties, and asking to start a relationship with them. It's hard. Most folks have certain ideas of what they want in a partner, and none of them say physical disability.

Human beings should not live lesser lives because theyre not beautiful - just as they shouldnt because theyre physically challenged. Thats a truth I agree on. I dont see that it follows that either A. all standards of physical beauty are false, or dehumanizing or B. standards of physical beauty have no bearing on art, in particular on nude art, in particular on nude public art.

These are separate issues I feel. First of all, standards of beauty are reinforced in the images in which we see in art. It isn't so clear cut as to say, that art represents the current standards, so much as it can also influence them.

Secondly, when you say there are standards for physical beauty, that is a huge question. What would those standards be?

Thirdly, is it necessary for public art to conform to the generally accepted norms for beauty? I find it difficult to see why you would wish to defend the norms of current society, when it tends to run contrary to more traditional forms.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Thirdly, is it necessary for public art to conform to the generally accepted norms for beauty? I find it difficult to see why you would wish to defend the norms of current society, when it tends to run contrary to more traditional forms.

there are subtle ways of effecting change, and not so subtle ones. A nude in wheelchair, who looked conventionally beautiful. A quadriplegic, with a conventionally beautiful face, but not nude. Heck, just something pointing out that Nelson is physically challenged and still dashing and heroic. Combining a quadriplegic, who is nude and is also pregnant, and isnt conventionally beautiful those factors apart, is NOT an attempt to gradually shift attitudes. It SEEMS 9(rightly or wrongly) like an attempt to shock the public - and while such shock is one function of art, its problematic for public art.

[Ben Kenobi]

Granted. But the question is how would you make a nude person in a wheelchair, not only appear beautiful, in the sense that you find her attractive, but also enticing for lack of a better word?

[duke o' york]

The problem is that, if this is an attempt to shock the public, then the public are easily shocked, and need such shocks, for want of a better word, to be educated against such snap judgements in future.